• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Discussion (Can these 20 people be removed from the list?)

Is this the right thread to bring this up?
It seems that the initial enthusiasm has waned, and some members have asked to be removed.
When I read this
http://www.debatepolitics.com/dp-co...10290-message-president-3.html#post1064070719
I began to wonder how many others feel the same.
While the idea of a constitutional convention is still intriguing, it seems that some have resorted to partisan bickering and with that, have taken the fun out of this exercise of compromise.
So I am really not sure if it is people like Jango and I who should excuse themselves from this convention, of it we should remove those who can't seem to put their own ego aside for the time being.
This should be discussed if we want to go any further.
Thank you for your time

Yes, there are a number of people who initially expressed interest but have not participated much since we began. IMO, that should be expected.

And yeah, there's been a lot of posts that put forward a particular point of view fomr both the right and the left. But that is not only expected, but encouraged. IMO, this would not be much of an exercise if it were nothing more than a bunch of people who already agreed with each other "debating" the issues. Besides, having people post their ideologically based ideas is what happens in nearly *every* thread on DP.

But as far as "bickering" goes, I think there has been far less of that than there normally is in other forums. For one thing, like the rest of DP, personal attacks are against the rules. However, in the rest of DP, that rule is only enforced when someone reports a post. In this forum, I along with some others, are reading all of the posts, and if it gets out of hand, I issue a warning which so far has been sufficient to bring the discussion back to a productive tone in most cases. In the one or two cases where the warning was not sufficient, the mods are notified and they make sure posters don't get out of line.

I believe that the overwhelming majority want this to work, and will moderate themselves in order to make this work. As far as the few who can't seem to control themselves, I believe an getting infraction or two in the next week or so will convince them to either moderate themselves or stop posting in the forum. Either way, it will mean less bickering than is normally found in the other forums.

I hope you stick it out and continue to contribute. I find your posts thought-provoking and look forward to your continued participation
 
the overwhelming majority want this to work, and will moderate themselves in order to make this work.

If you are a nerd like me then you find this statement funny because it provides two meanings that are both relevant. :giggling:
 
Updated:

Agent J (asked to be removed)
AlbqOwl (asked to be removed)
Beaudreaux, (asked to be removed)
Brewer Bob (asked to be removed)
Cardinal, (asked to be removed)
chromium (asked to be removed)
Declan (asked to be removed)
Hamster Buddha (asked to be removed)
iliveonramen (asked to be removed)
Kobie, (asked to be removed)
Korimyr the Rat (asked to be removed)
Northern Light, (asked to be removed)
tres borrachos, (asked to be removed)
Amandi, (never voted)
Chantal, (never voted)
Citizen.Seven, (never voted)
Geoist, (never voted)
hallam, (never voted)
imagep, (never voted)
Navy Pride, (never voted)
Poiuy, (never voted)
Psychoclown, (never voted)
RedAkston, (never voted)

No member has been removed at this time. I just wish that we could remove them from the list. Anybody want to help me do this?
 
Updated:

Agent J (asked to be removed)
AlbqOwl (asked to be removed)
Beaudreaux, (asked to be removed)
Brewer Bob (asked to be removed)
Cardinal, (asked to be removed)
chromium (asked to be removed)
Declan (asked to be removed)
Hamster Buddha (asked to be removed)
iliveonramen (asked to be removed)
Kobie, (asked to be removed)
Korimyr the Rat (asked to be removed)
Northern Light, (asked to be removed)
tres borrachos, (asked to be removed)
Amandi, (never voted)
Chantal, (never voted)
Citizen.Seven, (never voted)
Geoist, (never voted)
hallam, (never voted)
imagep, (never voted)
Navy Pride, (never voted)
Poiuy, (never voted)
Psychoclown, (never voted)
RedAkston, (never voted)

No member has been removed at this time. I just wish that we could remove them from the list. Anybody want to help me do this?

I will send some PM's
 
Why?

What if any change their mind after actual voting on OFFICIAL polls begin on language and amendments. I understand you wanting to remove moderates, progressives and liberals from the convention, many who said they were out after a certain member of the convention wanted changes in voting to try to assure a spot from a minority of votes - basically an ultra rightwing takeover of leadership contrary to majority vote, but a person wanting out does not just justify permanent removal.

I gave notice at one point I was ceasing posting in the basement, and one DM suggested then I be banned. I protested, and was not. I've also given notice I wasn't posting upstairs. That was no reason to ban my posting upstairs in the future.

There is absolutely NOTHING gained by declaring someone who doesn't want to participate now - since they aren't interfering with anything whatsoever. When actually official polls start happening some of those may want to participate. Their not wanting to bandy words on threads of not actual consequence doesn't mean then they all will have no interest later. Nor does a member have to be a Convention addict to have merit as a participant and voter. There is NO governmental body where a person is expelled for not sitting through speeches.

You also are asserting the forum attitude of the Convention will never improve, when it is up to you folks as to its worth and reputation. Improve the forum and some of them will participate. Get your wish - which in effect is to dramatically tilt the forum to the right - and the opposite in attitude will happen.
 
Last edited:
There is no precedent for officers of a political convention to unilaterally expel anyone. It would take a vote to expel, censor or remove any delegate - a super majority of at least 2/3rds of delegates - and even that's a stretch since there are no rules allowing it. And those 20 would get to vote on it.

In the original poll, it was repeatedly stated by Pirate the Convention would be open to "everyone" - that word used repeatedly. Suddenly, this was changed (on the claim of US Conservative) that only those who voted yes could participate - excluding literally all but 83 of the over 21,000 members of the forum.

Now you want to again exclude members - a surprise rules change again - for the effect of removing mostly members who are moderate, progressive and liberal - in your next attempt at a transparent rightwing takeover. In fact, if you look at the history, it was FIRST declaring it isn't open to everyone and SECOND than the plan of you and Paleocon to do a takeover of leadership literally by creating a position and declaring he wins even if he loses - that is when so many said they were out of it.

Is your goal to eliminate the Convention entirely in a covert way by constantly changing rules for a rightwing effect/agenda?. Get your way or destroy it?

Is there any point where the Convention will have any permanent rules? Or will rules always be created after-the-fact?
 
Last edited:
I do not think we should remove anyone from the list of participants.

However I would be fine with something like a "inactive list", basically they don't get notified and must ask to be added back to the active list if they want their votes to count on a poll.\

Or something?
 
My messages above were not to make any personal attack against anyone nor to post messages against the Convention. Rather, to state what it seems would advance or hinder it, how to improve it, and ideally how to keep it balanced - and ideally -growing in participation and diversity of ideas.

Also discussing the actual long term effects of a change in real terms, not just as a general concept, seems relevant and appropriate to post.

Many of the delegates are putting a lot of effort into this and I hope it goes well for those who are sincerely discussing topics.
 
Last edited:
I do not think we should remove anyone from the list of participants.

However I would be fine with something like a "inactive list", basically they don't get notified and must ask to be added back to the active list if they want their votes to count on a poll.\

Or something?

It would be reasonable to not PM those who don't want to receive notices, yes. Would make it easier on the officers too. I don't see basis they have to ask permission or give notice to vote again. That's not how it works in any legislative body - local, state or federal. Nor does it work that way at political conventions.
 
I have decided that no one will be removed as a member of the convention. Anyone member who does not want to receive notifications can submit a request to be removed from the Notification List but they will remain a member of the convention and wiill be qualified to vote.
 
Why?


There is absolutely NOTHING gained by declaring someone who doesn't want to participate now - since they aren't interfering with anything whatsoever. When actually official polls start happening some of those may want to participate. Their not wanting to bandy words on threads of not actual consequence doesn't mean then they all will have no interest later. Nor does a member have to be a Convention addict to have merit as a participant and voter. There is NO governmental body where a person is expelled for not sitting through speeches.

You also are asserting the forum attitude of the Convention will never improve, when it is up to you folks as to its worth and reputation. Improve the forum and some of them will participate. Get your wish - which in effect is to dramatically tilt the forum to the right - and the opposite in attitude will happen.

No one wants to remove someone because they are moderate or whatever.

The concern is what happens when voting starts. If we say "majority (or 2/3rds) of those who vote wins" - that's one thing. But if we say winning requires a majority or 2/3rds of all members - then we may be in trouble with members who are on the list but who are not participating.

Reminds me of the frantic calls I get sometimes re items in my IRA, where they desperately want me to vote my stock options because they need a certain % returned....
 
It would be reasonable to not PM those who don't want to receive notices, yes. Would make it easier on the officers too. I don't see basis they have to ask permission or give notice to vote again. That's not how it works in any legislative body - local, state or federal. Nor does it work that way at political conventions.
Legislative bodies have terms of office though.

Actually, I've been wondering if we need to have some system for adding and removing convention members.

I mean, are we simply letting anyone who is interested join and participate for however long they wish? That MIGHT work...
 
No one wants to remove someone because they are moderate or whatever.

The concern is what happens when voting starts. If we say "majority (or 2/3rds) of those who vote wins" - that's one thing. But if we say winning requires a majority or 2/3rds of all members - then we may be in trouble with members who are on the list but who are not participating.

Reminds me of the frantic calls I get sometimes re items in my IRA, where they desperately want me to vote my stock options because they need a certain % returned....

This would only apply if a quorum is required. A majority is only 50% + 1. 2/3rds is a super majority. I doubt many things will pass on 2/3rds and a simple majority might be more viable. This is just an exercise, not the real thing of course.
 
Legislative bodies have terms of office though.

Actually, I've been wondering if we need to have some system for adding and removing convention members.

I mean, are we simply letting anyone who is interested join and participate for however long they wish? That MIGHT work...

There are merits both ways. I understand the concerns of anyone voting as that changes the dynamics quite a bit. The problem with limiting is the only thing that can happen is the number diminishes across time - and this evolves like most threads do. By that I mean it comes down to people of the two furthest positions posting the same thing back and forth 100, 200, 300 times - for which everyone else gets bored and even those become bored.

There are certain topics - such as abortion - for which the same small group have posted the same arguments back and forth THOUSANDS of times. Without new people? It gets boring.

There also is the question of what about new members who join the forum?

However, that said, there is a different dynamic between closed voting and open door voting. There are pluses and minuses to both.

The question is what is the PRIMARY goal?

IF the primary goal is to explore the dynamics of a convention? Then it should be closed door because what is being explored is how well can a small, self contained group works together - or not. A closed-door Convention also then will have a lot to do with structure, pecking order, and rules of procedure matters.

IF the primary goal is to explore possible changes to (or a completely new) the Constitution and Bill of Rights? Then it should be open-door to maximize comments, participation and to keep it from becoming too predictable and repetitious. A open-door convention is more about Constitutional and Bill of Rights issues themselves.

At one point, I thought having BOTH types of Conventions going - including to see the contrast - would be a good idea. However, that could cause a problem for this Convention and some other problems with it. There also would be no way I could avoid appearing a malcontent personally if I did it.

One possibility is you delegates and elected leaders who decide what the issues polls (ie voting) will be about - and when that is decided THEN allowing all members to comment and vote. That only delegates (current Convention members and leaders) could pick "official" votes.

That then really is BOTH models being explored and used. Essentially, topics controlled by the leadership and delegates to give it controlled direction, substance and form - plus actual votes established by those of you (delegates) most involved in discussion and debate, but then all members could then vote on those selected. Is it even viable to establish a Constitution and Bill Of Rights that "we the people" do not agree with? In that dual model, there is the question of can you delegates and leaders come up with reasonably worded vote/poll choices that are credible to others? If not, what's the point?
 
Last edited:
I do wish more people would get involved. It's getting kind of boring.
 
I do wish more people would get involved. It's getting kind of boring.

That really is the #1 reason to open it up. Very quickly a small group comes to know where each person stands, so it becomes boring.
 
What's our current membership count?

And I was just handed the link to this sub folder, so I've missed a great deal of discussion.
 
Back
Top Bottom